Alonzo Fyfe

Two points:

(1) I recognize the distinction between the two issues, "what the law is" and "what the law ought to be."

And while the former is a legitimate question, in this country it seems to have drowned out any discussion of what the law ought to be -- which I hold to be the more important question.

Without a good public understanding of the latter issue, the former is put increasingly at risk by people who say, "Why don't we just get rid of this stupid restriction once and for all."

Which leads directly to the next point.


(2) From contradictory premises, all conclusions are equally valid.

Have you ever noticed that almost nobody comes up with a definition that they disagree with? The way most people "reason" on this issue is to begin with the interpretation that they like, then they look for the quotes that back their favorite interpretation.

Because of the large degree of contradictions and inconsistencies, both over time and among each other; as well as their own hypocracies, anybody can find the quotes they want to support whatever view they want.

Even Supreme Court Justices can fall into this trap -- particularly considering that their nomination to the court depends on their capacity to rationalize the prevailing attitude of the dominant political party.

The strongest political strategy available for influencing what the law is, is to determine people's beliefs on what the law ought to be. Because, eventually, one way or another, people are going to change "what the law is" into "what (they believe) the law ought to be."

We ignore the latter discussion only at our own peril.